Exulansic has reduced following?

Further to females resorting to prostitution to finance Gender Surgery, this is now being RECOMMENDED by the NHS!!

Please see current Mumsnet thread:

"NHS booklet promotes prostitution and sex by deception"
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4503838-NHS-booklet-promotes-prostitution-and-sex-by-deception

ATeamAmy - We are allowed to have differences of opinion, we don't have to love everyone in the GC movement or everything they say and believe, and we are allowed to state our opinion without being troll hunted and labelled as TRAs.

Ironically, this applies to "both sides" as far as this particular difference of opinion is concerned.

gcrhino - So frustrating. If people don't want Debbie Hayton on UK News discussing this, fine... then show me the other people who will talk about what's happening to our kids. I don't care if it's Posie, Debbie, Joanna Cherry, we need EVERYONE to be talking about this. I have never once met another mum in my parent support group who disagrees with this. We don't have the luxury of time.

Surely "both sides" can be united on this?

Everything that ATeamAmy says is true but it reads as if these parents are chanting "We want Debbie!! We want Debbie!!" - which they are clearly not.

"We don't have the luxury of time."

I read this to refer not to the wider political, campaigning context but to individual parents who are concerned about their children.

• Children who are at imminent risk of being medicalised for life, of making life-changing and potentially life-limiting decisions, hormonal and surgical modifications to their bodies (including impact on their brains with the early-Alzheimers link for females), sterility, etc.

• Children who are encouraged to consider their families as the enemy, to leave home and in some cases to turn to prostitution to finance surgery and support themselves (and others?).

I am going to labour the last point a bit by adding some links because it is rare that the GC side mentions prostitution in this context other than in relation to murder rates in Brazil. In other countries, it is young females whose bodies are being exploited to fill the coffers of what, IIRC, has been referred to as the "Gender Medicine Industrial Complex":

"Anorexia, Homelessness, and Prostitution: The Cold Reality of Gender Dysphoric Youth"
Jan 21 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/anorexia-homelessness-and-prostitution-the-cold-reality-of-gender-dysphoric-youth

"Gender Dysphoric Teen Girls in Sweden turn to prostitution amidst mental health collapse"
June 2 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/gender-dysphoric-teen-girls-in-sweden-turn-to-prostitution-amidst-mental-health-collapse

"The Shameful Exploitation of Gender Dysphoric Females in Online Prostitution"
June 9 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/the-shameful-exploitation-of-gender-dysphoric-females-in-online-prostitution

"Dysphoric Females, Only Fans, Online Prostitution and GoFundMe: The Intersection of Exploitation"
June 13 2021
www.gendermapper.org/post/dysphoric-females-only-fans-online-prostitution-and-gofundme-the-intersection-of-exploitation

Parents tell us that Genspect has functioned as powerful advocate and support for them.

• parents report that Genspect makes a significant, positive impact in supporting them and is a positive force for change through advocacy for parents.

• Mumsnetters would seem generally to agree since the organisations routinely recommended to parents are

On the other hand, a small number of "GC Influencers" and their supporters appear determined to destroy the reputation and effectiveness of both Genspect and the parents who are involved with Genspect:

• by citing a contrived chain of "guilt by association" links with paedophilia

• suggesting that finding it offensive that DH was interviewed on "A Wider Lens" equates to a significant, real life, negative impact on "the GC cause" and Genspect is to blame, because "Stella and Sasha"

• citing something (I am not quite sure what) to do with Stella O'Malley's comments re the editing of "Trans Kids: Time to Talk" in relation to the inclusion of Stephanie Hayton and her spouse.

I do not think that it is either necessary or wise to "destigmatize" paedophilia in order to encourage paedophiles to refrain from molesting and raping children. Otherwise, I think it can only be a good thing if fewer children are harmed by paedophiles. Preferably by paedophiles never harming children in the first place.

(As an aside: Unfortunately, programmes or interventions aimed at paedophiles will do nothing to halt children being raped just because they are easy prey, ie. not to paedophiles but to, for example, their older brothers and step-fathers. It might be a red herring but there is a GC woman who has been casting around for information about the proportion of "female transitioners" who have older brothers or step-fathers, given that it is often mentioned that "transition" can be a response to child sexual abuse and that brothers and step-fathers are, apparently, often the abusers. Note also the evidence of young, dysphoric females being trafficked into prostitution and links between childhood sexual abuse and vulnerability to further sexual abuse.)

Personally, despite some legitimate criticisms aimed at Genspect, I still see Genspect as a force for good, providing support and advocacy for parents.

I also remain unconvinced that Genspect presents any sort of danger, whether to children or to the "GC Cause".

Indeed ATeamAmy, saying what needs to be said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

If people don't want Debbie Hayton on UK News discussing this, fine... then show me the other people who will talk about what's happening to our kids.

This is a very unfair statement. UK feminists have been battling to get mainstream media airtime, to do the very thing you want - talk about the damage the trans movement is doing to our children. Time and time again, they were excluded from mainstream media discussion in favour of panels consisting of all biological males, i.e. men who identify as men and transwomen. This happened as recently as last year, when BBC's Moral Maze discussed trans women in female sport. They did not bother asking a woman to participate, instead had 2 trans women with opposing views, Joanna Harper and the ubiquitous Debbie Hayton, who has no expertise of women and sport. In the same week, BBC Women's Hour chose to speak to only a trans woman (Jo Harper again) on Twin women's sport. Dr Emma Hilton (pretty much the expert on the matter) was on standby to speak to BBC Women's Hour on the same topic. She was not called, Emma also asked why Moral Maze had not asked her to speak IIRC. Likewise, the otherwise excellent Nolan Report series gave a prominent, whole episode discussion place to Debbie Hayton, which could have gone to any one of a large number of knowledgeable and keen to talk to the media feminists who would have been more representative of the GC side than Debbie, not to mention, the woman's side. When biological women have been interviewed by the mainstream, they were treated with extreme hostility, a treatment I have never heard Debbie Hayton receive. It is hard to get your message across when you are dealing with an interviewer who sounds like they have already pre judged you as a hateful, bigot and a hysterical pearl clutcher, and this is what female interviewees, got time and time again and are still getting (most recently, Maya Forstater on Woman's Hour last week, and Posie on LBC a few weeks ago). Now, times have changed a lot, and those strong women can more than hold their own when they get that kind of media treatment. Thanks to women not giving up, the public and politicians know what is going on and can see our side. But there was a point, about 4 years ago, when were screaming into the void. Women were relieved that Debbie was being given a fair hearing because we were not, and he gave us a "shield" against accusations of transphobia. Only in hindsight do I realise how crazy that relief was - I view it as a type of Stockholm Syndrome brought about by the sheer frustration and fear, that women were feeling at the time, of being either unheard or misunderstood.

As terryleather pointed out, Debbie Hayton is the person that wrote guidance recommending TW be honoured with pronoun usage and access to female toilets. That's not a friendly or even neutral position to take where your children are concerned. When higher education establishments adopt those sorts of trans friendly policies, it trickles downwards to the institutions that look after your children. We are battling the trans agenda in our schools where it is being used to indoctrinate our little children precisely because the Debbie Haytons of this world have normalised it in the adult world. People like him helped open the doors to a societal shift that you and other parents are struggling to now shield your children from. The TRA agenda is the AGP agenda, and DH has AGP, this is no secret. It's an agenda of validation and normalisation of an adult paraphilia amongst the young, and projecting that onto the feelings of vulnerable children to make them believe they are one and the same. I amazed that you are unable to see that.

Did you know that Stella O'Malley did a documentary featuring Debbie Hayton and his wife, Stephanie, a couple of years ago (2018ish)? Many of us were shocked by the piece, and moved by Stephanie, who seemed miserable. I was appalled by SO'M's interview (on GAWL) with DH at the end of last year, where SO'M basically did a hit piece on her own documentary, claiming it had been edited in such a way as to give the wrong impression to all us idiots who thought Stephanie was distressed, like so many of the trans widows we hear from on this board. I'll copy and paste what one commentator to that interview said, because it basically sums up how I feel on this:

There's quite a bit of defensiveness from you Stella, at the start of this when discussing the film. Apparently viewers misinterpreted how Stephanie felt about Debbie's transition, but that's just because the video was edited out of sequence to make it Stephanie look really sad. Why would you do that then? Isn't it a bit manipulative? I know this is down to the editors and director but you were at pains to point out that Debbie and Stephanie were both happy with the segment before it went out. [Indeed, DH in this interview was very complimentary about the original piece on him and Stephanie, both had been shown it and given their approval before it aired, and both felt like it was a fair reflection of their situation - so why did Stella then diss it?] We're not just basing our impressions on the short segment in your film, there was also the long interview that Debbie and Stephanie did for Straight Spouse Network. [Now called Our Path, where this interview can be heard] As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with Debbie talking about his own experience, the problem comes when he inserts himself into the women's movement or speaks to the media on behalf of women. It's not an appropriate role for a man with a paraphilia and it makes it very difficult for trans widows or adult children of trans parents to participate if he's on the platform.

I have zero problem with Debbie Hayton having a voice in this game as Debbie Hayton, friendly AGP, who acknowledges his paraphilia and his maleness. That in itself is an important voice to counter the TWAW mantra and the ever expanding trans umbrella. But when Debbie Hayton's voice is substituted for that of a biological woman - as if the agenda of an AGP male can ever be the same as that of biological women - then that is a problem. I understand that you are thinking about your children so you are happy with any voice you feel supports you. We all are thinking about our children, as well as ourselves as women and the vulnerabilities that entails, and our female relatives, especially our elderly. But there is a wider picture. That's the defence of women's ability to speak freely, for ourselves, without deplatforming, and to be given an equal voice in a matter that negatively effects only us in the most fundamental ways. Take away women's right to speak and you may as well kiss your children's welfare goodbye. Women are the gatekeepers of children, that's why TRAs don't want us to have a voice. Every time Debbie Hayton purports to speak for us, one of us is being silenced.

And I have to say, UK women have been on this, talking about this and campaigning about this for years now, certainly the women who first took the Spartacus oath here 6 or so years ago and opened my eyes. That's why the UK is called Terf Island. Please don't lecture us about speaking out and there being no time. We have been. Half the women (and a notable number men) who are prominent in the news as GC commentators learned what they know from these pages. We have supported through donating to crowd funders, written to our MPs, filled out interminable surveys, challenged our schools, supported channels like Stella's and Glinners and spread the word about them, bought the books, tweeted until banned, worn the T-shirts, stood and protested, alienated ourselves from friends and families who think we are unkind terfs. Many brave women no longer sit behind pseudonyms and avatars and have put themselves out there, they and their families subject to threats and vilification. We have done our bit and then some and do so every day. We are allowed to have differences of opinion, we don't have to love everyone in the GC movement or everything they say and believe, and we are allowed to state our opinion without being troll hunted and labelled as TRAs.

Some Previous Posters have mentioned that they are "first timers" to Mumsnet in posting on this thread and I think that includes some Parents.

For the avoidance of doubt and to reassure those parents, when parents such as those involved with Genspect have posted about their concerns as parents on this Board (Sex & Gender) they have been received as sympathetically and been given as much support as Trans Widows and Children of Transitioners.

This is, after all, primarily a Parenting Forum

Our aim is to:

• Make parents' lives easier by pooling knowledge, advice and support.

• We try, as far as possible to let the conversation flow and not to over-moderate. Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups.

www.mumsnet.com/i/about-us

Genspect rebuttal and reaction to [Ex thread cont.]
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4501765-Genspect-rebuttal-and-reaction-to-Ex-thread-cont

Indeed, if nothing it has learned me to quote or screenshot any mention. However insignificant it may seem. You never know when something is going to be wiped away. And, then they'll be all sorts of accusations flying about!

I have asked MumsnetHQ if they could find that post from the deleted thread, so there is no confusion about what was said, and by whom. I wouldn't hold my breath though, as it is from a deleted thread.

How and ever, and in the heel of the hunt, it doesn't really matter who mentioned Cantor. I do think I have clarified that I never said you said supported Cantor or were an apologist for Cantor. And will try to word things less clumsily in the future.

[quote 264MyShirt]Genspect thread here:

Genspect rebuttal and reaction to [Ex thread cont.]
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4501765-Genspect-rebuttal-and-reaction-to-Ex-thread-cont[/quote]
Not @ ing you MyShirt. Just wanted the link from Thursday at 19:16

"The tragedy is that, without the likes of Genspect, it is parents who will find themselves again alone in the wilderness. KD and SW have nothing to lose in going after Genspect. The parents who support and rely on them have everything to lose."

THANK YOU!!!

So frustrating. If people don't want Debbie Hayton on UK News discussing this, fine... then show me the other people who will talk about what's happening to our kids. I don't care if it's Posie, Debbie, Joanna Cherry, we need EVERYONE to be talking about this. I have never once met another mum in my parent support group who disagrees with this. We don't have the luxury of time.

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@264MyShirt

I realize I saw the reference to Cantor awhile ago elsewhere when the question was first raised whether KD's claim that Genspect was linked to paedophilia was true. Given that the answer to that question was so succinct and thorough I am posting it here as it clarifies what happened that created this unfortunate confusion:

"It's a weak link. Aaron Kimberly and Sasha Ayad, advisors of Genspect along with the member Stella O'Malley have all interviewed Michael Bailey, the author of The Man Who Would be Queen (Aaron's interview here and Sasha and Stella's interview here .

They've also interviewed Ray Blanchard (here and here .

Both Bailey and Blanchard are listed as supporters on the Virtuous Pedophiles about page (Wayback Machine link to that page here virped.org/our-supporters.html) Also listed is Cantor who wants to throw a parade for pedophiles who make the huge sacrifice of not abusing a child...). It seems like most mainstream sex researchers are on the destigmatize-pedophile-train, including Debra Soh who is also listed as a supporter."[/quote]
Thank you DontLikeCrumpets - that's really helpful!

(I searched for "Debra Soh who is also listed as a supporter" and found the original discussion on Ovarit, which was also useful.)

The nature of this "weak link" makes the whole thing even more bizarre.

Where it ends up is with "Virtuous Paedophiles" website - incredibly creepy-sounding and rather suspect.

Placing those two words next to each other will inevitably create a semantic link between "virtue" and "paedophilia", ie. not just making it sound like being sexually attracted to children is a good-thing but conditioning the brain to link the concept of "virtue" with "paedophilia". Not a million miles from the attempted "rebranding" of child molesters as "Kinds".

Even if the mental association does not go that far, there is also the suggestion that these are "good people" per se, which is obviously ridiculous. I am sure any parent would be glad to know that their child was not raped before being murdered but that hardly qualifies the murderer to be considered "virtuous", ie. if they confess that they wanted to rape as well as kill but kindly (!) restrained themselves from violating the child!

"Non-offending" would be a better description because it is objective and refers to actions, or lack of action.

I find it hard to trust the motives of a group of self-confessed paedophiles who set out their stall as being "virtuous" people.

It makes my skin crawl and I can't be the only one who feels this way, so it makes me wonder if that "branding" might be self-defeating?

However, if - BIG IF - their aim is genuinely to prevent children being abused and raped AND they achieve that aim, then that has to be a good thing.

Whether they are going the right way about it to achieve that aim is another thing altogether and needs separate consideration. For example, it was found that the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme being used in UK Prisons for many years only succeeded in increasing the rate of offending post-release.

What I meant by "the nature of this weak link" above, is that to portray it as "concerning" or indicative of any meaningful link between Genspect and paedophiles is thoroughly contrived.

All the people mentioned as "links" in this "guilt by association chain" (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor - B,B&C) are researchers whose work and views inform current understanding of the various, possibly unrelated, phenomena grouped under the labels "transgender", "transsexual", "gender dysphoria", "gender identity disorder", etc. etc.

That does not mean that they are now, and have always been, correct in their understanding of these phenomena. They are scientists, fallible humans, not divine oracles.

In a contested field of study, unless and until their research is proved misleading and worthless, their views are important and need to be aired, alongside those of the long list of other researchers interviewed by individuals involved with Gensepct.

However, the suggestion from Genspect's critics seems to be that, due to B,B&C's research and views in a different area of "Sexology" (paedophilia), that B,B&C should be "No Platformed" by individuals involved with Genspect.

At the same time, these critics claim to be "free speech" advocates and protest vociferously (rightly IMHO) when they are "cancelled" and "deplatformed" by those who regard their views as dangerously ill-informed.

Both KD and SW have been banned from various social media platforms for their actual views, which I think is wrong. Yet they criticise Genspect for a contrived association between three "Genspect" individuals, operating in a different capacity, via B,B&C with some possibly dubious organisations or individuals.

So a very weak link, rather than anything to do with views actually articulated by Genspect or members of the Genspect team.

This position and situation is ironic. By this reasoning, there is also cause for Sierra and Karen to be shunned by all right-thinking people, irrespective of the value of what they have to offer.

I am NOT suggesting that either should be shunned for this reason, only that their position looks rather shaky, hypocritical even.

For example, they also lambast Benjamin Boyce for having interviewed Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor. BB is therefore evil! However, they both clearly had a whale of a time being interviewed by BB, Ex three times.

Did they not do due diligence to discover BB's links to BB&C? Did they know but not care, selling their souls for greater visibility on a more popular YouTube channel? So off with their heads too? (sarcasm)

ps. I note that Fieldofgreycorn has suggested a possible motive for KD and SW's "seek and destroy" mission against Genspect and/or Stella. That is, if I have understood correctly, that KD and SW expect everyone involved in this area to be "GC Activists" and that if they are not then they are the enemy. The same tension, between "campaigners" and "service providers", plays out in many areas.

I saw it play out in a leading organisation that provided support and services for people whose lives were marred by serious substance abuse. It was "taken over" by infiltration of "campaigners". Within 18 months of the first appointment of a "campaigner" all funding had been diverted to campaigning and all support and services for individuals had been closed down.

There is room, and need for, both activism/campaigning and advocacy/service provision in this area too.

It is a tragedy when the energy and imagination of activism/campaigning is turned against allies. It weakens all of us.

I really feel for the parents caught in the cross-fire. It is not even as if KD and SW are rivals of Genspect, ie. offering to provide alternative advocacy/services.

There was a quote about Thatcher that I am struggling to remember, along the lines of, "If you destroy all those around you, do not be surprised when find yourself alone in the wilderness".

The tragedy is that, without the likes of Genspect, it is parents who will find themselves again alone in the wilderness. KD and SW have nothing to lose in going after Genspect. The parents who support and rely on them have everything to lose.

I will immediately ask for the original post (and quote posts) to be deleted. I do understand how it was clumsy op, so have removed clumsy wording.

I was curious about a remark I had seen about James Cantor.
James Cantor is an American/Canadian chappie. Now I don't know if he is influential, but did find a screenshot of a tweet quote of his that would be abhorrent to most parents and probably doubly abhorrent to most parents who are same sex attracted.

Speaking as a gay man, I believe we should include the P. To do otherwise is to betray the principles that gave us our rights

What special or extra rights (that they don't have now) does Cantor think Paedophiles should have, I wonder? Or, turning it around, I wonder what discrimination or injustice does he think Paedophiles face that take away their rights? What does that mean for children?
Definitely a NoThankYou moment from me.

Prostasia's Goal is to Normalize Pedophilia by Anna Slatz is the site where I found that twitter screenshot. For source.

This thread has come away from the title and opening post quite a bit, but I suppose that means we are all free to remark on things as topics arise.

However I will post again without any reference to the other thread, which someone who shall remain anonymous started. And, that anonymous person mentioned James Cantor (with what appeared to me to be disapproval) and stated (I paraphrase) along the lines that somebody should apologise for him. Not to him, rather about him.

That is probably better wording. I can probably cut it out though. As the thread that nobody started that was subsequently deleted.

Every time you silence a parent or an organisation who speaks for parents then you are inadvertently enabling a cult thats gives mastectomies to young and vulnerable teenagers @terryleather
There is nothing wrong with amplifying the voices of trans widows and their children but there is everything wrong with doing so at the expense of Other Vulnerable People

[quote Linearpark]@Cailleach1
Could you please explain what you are on about please?[/quote]
Yes, I correctly referred to Lineaxxxxcc in the post. I did not suggest in any shape or form that Lineaxxxxcc was a supporter of Cantor (or comments made by Cantor). Indeed, if pushed to infer anything from the tone, I would have thought the poster was unimpressed by Cantor. That is just my own opinion, though. I think they said someone should apologise for him. Maybe that is why I was curious to look him up. I think that poster had tried to move the conversation to another thread, and subsequently deleted it.

Yes, no implication or suggestion of support (or otherwise) in my reference. I was curious about the remark made by Lineaxxxxcc about James Cantor. There begun, and there endeth the reference to that poster.

Every time you amplify the voices of men such as Hayton, no matter how reasonable you believe their position to be (and this is the author of trans guidance in schools recommending that pupils use prefered pronouns to their teachers, and staff should use the toilet facilities of their chosen" gender identity" etc) then you are doing so at the expense of their wives/partners and children.

I don't think that's acceptable.